Is Evolution a science or a faith?

[pocaracas]

Oh, my! Harris, what a wall of text!!!
I know you want to address everyone and everyone wants you to address them, but this... hmmm... becomes too much.
Anyway, I'll cover the bits that address me.

---

What does "before the origin of the universe" mean, if (according to your question) there is no space and, by necessity since Relativity is correct, also no time?
Let me ask it in different terms: what does behind mean, if you have no space?
What channel is on the tv, if the set is turned off?

On the other hand, if there was some sort of space-time before our Universe formed, we have no way of interacting with it, nor measuring, nor even knowing about it.
The big bang is also a big barrier of information... we cannot say anything about what happened prior to it. So we say nothing. Did I forget to mention I was a physicist? Not an astrophysicist, so it's not my field of expertise, but still.... I know a couple of things.

Your "friends" then take this void of information and twist what physicists say into a "there was nothing before and, suddenly, there was something, everything". But that is not what physicists say. That is what theists say: there was nothing, except god, and then, by holy magic, everything came into being.

Physicists also say we can only know about the physical laws at work within our Universe.... what lies beyond, if anything, we cannot tell. No one can tell.
Meaning that anyone claiming to know what lies beyond is lying.

---

I agree that physicists can predict up to a point extremely close to the big bang but at the big bang and beyond, no one knows what occurred. The laws of nature can take us back to an initial break down completely and become inapplicable. The zero space-time and infinite energy of the initial singularity indicate methodological failure as well as a cosmological beginning. Science cannot transcend its own limitations.

Cosmologists think that Planck space-time is the ultimate minimal unit for anything physical to be at all. If they are right, no mass/energy, and no space or time can exist, that is smaller or time can exist that is smaller or earlier than Planck dimensions. No laws of physics could apply antecedently since nothing could exist to which physical laws apply.

I was with you up until the last sentence.
... to which known physical laws can apply.

Never forget the unknown unknowns.

However, the problem is “absolutely nothing caused the Big Bang” presupposes that “Absolutely nothing once existed,” but no conceivable experience could ever directly verify this affirmation. Any confirming or disconfirming experience would exist and would thus falsify the claim. No examples of absolute non-existence, or of causation by non-existence, could ever be given directly in any conceivable experience. Also, we cannot reason inductively about such things since we have no instances with which to start.

Just because we can't access the information that our curiosity yearns for...

So we are left with the immaterial world.

---

The immaterial world, then, is everything that is in some way related to our physical bodies. This reality is outside the realm of material things. Our body lives in the physical world, but our inner-self (our mind) is part of the immaterial world. Mind being immaterial looks inwards, past the physical body, and studies the immaterial world. We are unable to contemplate over the world beyond matter by the use of science, as logically science is not appropriate to measure immaterial concepts. Those immaterial concepts are unavoidable as they are part of our physical bodies. Mind and logic are the only means through which one can judge those immaterial concepts. In short, physical world, its harmony, its discipline, its cause and effect provide much evidence for the immaterial world that is factually controlling and running the material world.

---

You name that immaterial world as evolution and I call that an Intelligent God. I think, logically, the idea of Intelligent God is far superior to “unguided” evolution.

... It doesn't mean that an immaterial consciousness exists and was responsible for the events that have happened in the past.

Evolution does turn one species into another, but in an unguided way.

Harmony and order cannot be the outcome of an unguided process. It is against the rules of science.

Surely, you're aware of brownian motion, no?
Even a completely random movement results in an overall path.

It just so happens that the new species (or more than one species) is(are) the one(s) that has(have) progressively become better adapted to the ever changing environment, while the old one has steadily become worse adapted. It is a very slow, multi-generational mechanism. Many potential changes within a population fail the Darwinian test, while a few succeed and make into the next generation and the next, and the next... and, in time, you can tell the life-form is quite different from the original. The original will have become extinct, while the new is alive and well.

You do not have scientific proof for what you believe in. In fact, scientific facts and scientific data are talking on the contrary to your ideas.

Only circumstantial evidence, as far as I know.
And a theory that ties all of it together, wraps it in colored paper and even adds a pretty ribbon.

Care to show me where "scientific facts and scientific data are talking on the contrary to your ideas."?

In some occasions, no amount of change can adapt to the environment and you get an extinction of the whole "branch" of the tree of life.

Yes, that is called the GAPS and that is a real pain for scientists who want to prove evolution as inexorable source for the variety of life on planet earth.

The GAPS? care to educate me on that acronym?

---

And BTW fresh water and salt water do mix, if that were false we would see a halocline in the ocean.

Halocline is an observable phenomenon. It not only observable in the caves but this phenomenon is observable in the ocean as well.

https://plus.google.com/1062239653832902...EkSkizRhQc

http://www.pinterest.com/pin/93942342200431155/

Halocline requires special conditions to happen.
Nothing in the qur'an mentions those conditions... it just mentions that such a thing happens... but in a very imprecise way which reminds me of Aristotle's projectiles:

The subject of Quran is Human Being and his deeds. It gives a direct threat to those who transgress the moral limits and good tidings to those who control their wild desires in good faith. Quran is not the book of science; it is a book of signs.

The sign of Halocline as presented in Quran, do occur accurately the way Quran mentioned. You correctly noticed, Halocline requires special conditions to happen which is not something common. Perhaps for this reason even in today’s world many people are unaware about this phenomenon.

---

Keep in mind the time and culture when and where Quran revealed and then consider what Quran said about the phenomenon of Halocline, which is true.

Or not
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Meeting_of_Fre..._the_Quran

Aristotle’s projectile compared to Newton’s projectile is irreconcilable. You cannot compare the true phenomenon of Halocline with the false phenomenon of Aristotle’s projectile.

But I can compare a faulty understanding of how the world works versus a more complete understanding.

The quran is talking about an estuary, not a melting glacier!
It's mere coincidence that such an effect happens somewhere in the world. Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.